9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The order of the ld.CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the reopening of the assessment suffered procedural irregularity. The notice u/s.148 was issued on 31/03/2016 and was served by affixture . After obtaining the whereabouts of the assessee, the copy of the said notice was re-served on the assessee on 24/08/2016. Hence there is no procedural irregularity. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had duly recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment and the order was a speaking order. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not followed the guidelines given by Apex Court in the case of GKM Driveshafts. 2.3 Before filing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2016 was duly served on the assessee. Since, the notice had been returned, the inspector went to the premises of the assessee company and served the notice by affixing the notice. Further, on verification with AST Module new address was found from the latest Income tax returns filed by the assessee and hence the notice u/s. 148 and 143(2) of the Act, was also issued on 24.08.2016. In response to the notice, the assessee replied that notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond the due date specified under the Act and thus, requested to drop the proceedings. The Assessing Officer, rejected the objections of the assessee and taken up the case for assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Luncar Finance Pvt Ltd. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of fact that, the assessee has admitted a sum of Rs. 15.38 crores additional income before Settlement Commission on account of investment with Luncar Finance Pvt Ltd, deleted addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: "12. The objections filed are examined. The assessee company has also submitted a copy of the application filed by M/s RTP infra projects ltd., before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. In the said application, M/ s RTP infra projects ltd has owned up the undisclosed investment in the assessee company to extent of Rs. 15,38,00,000/-. This application bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts has rightly allowed relief to the assessee and their order should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee company has received security premium of Rs. 15.87 crores for issue of fresh share capital during the financial year relevant to assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer has made additions towards security premium u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, on the ground that consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares and thus, consideration received for said shares which exceeds the fair market of the shares needs to be treated as income of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
